TNAG-0081-FCO40-117-Public-Order-legislation-1968 — Page 63

J

England that even a pencil may be a useful weapon for defending

oneself against a criminal attack and it is therefore clearly

recognised as being suitable for causing injury. That would not

matter if the sections creating offences in relation to offensive

weapons required a violent and guilty intent, but they do not.

Thus s. 32 would presumably have the result that a newspaper

reporter who had in his possession in an area under curfew a pencil

not for domestic purposes but for the purposes of his work, would

be guilty of an offence. If, of course, when carrying it he were

to have the intent to commit an unlawful assault it is right that

he should be liable to conviction, but he would be so liable even

if the words "or suitable" were omitted, although then the pro-

secution would have to prove his guilty intent. Is that an unaccep-

table burden when the alternative is to drag in the person carrying

an "innocent" object for an "innocent" purpose? We hope not.

6. "Public meeting".

་

This is, of course, tied up with

the definition of "meeting" but at present this also is far too

wide, It will, for example, include any private party (even a

family party) held in a public restaurant. Is the Commissioner of

Police prepared to receive applications from and to issue licences

to every gathering, for whatever purpose, held in a public place?

Is it reasonable that such applications should have to be made at

all, let alone 7 days in advance? We think not.

7 Section 3

There is no requirement that the opinion of the officer

must be based on reasonable grounds; he is given an absolute

discretion. We do not think that it is right or necessary that a

police officer of any rank whatever should be given such wide

powers unless he is ultimately answerable in a court of law.

is the more important in view of the extraordinarily sweeping

This

3.